The bankruptcy filing caused a halt in Ford Transit Connect production

While the electric vehicle (EV) industry seems to be moving forward in many ways, it has also experienced some setbacks over the last year. Unfortunately, many of these setbacks involve EV batteries, and now, Ford is in the same boat.

Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy on Monday, and was forced to lay off 120 employees worldwide. Layoffs occurred in Boston, Michigan, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In addition to layoffs, Azure Dynamics said it will no longer proceed with a planned stock offering because the company just doesn't have the liquidity to move forward with an appeal of a ruling that opposed its planned stock offering.

"We wish to convey to the company's stakeholders our terrible sadness at this outcome," said Azure Dynamics in a statement.

Azure Dynamics received a four-year contract from the Government Services Administration for about $112 million. The contract gave the U.S. military and government agencies the ability to order the Transit Connect EV, and Azure said it had about 2,200 orders. In addition, Azure was attracted to Michigan because of the state tax credit, which is over $1.7 million over a seven-year period, and an 11-year local tax abatement approved by the city of Oak Park valued at $55,400.

On Ford's side of the situation, the bankruptcy means having to stop production of the Transit Connect EV, and it's currently unclear if this situation will be temporary or permanent.

So far, Ford has produced 500 EV Ford Transit Connect vehicles since 2010, when it began its partnership with Azure. Despite Azure's recent news of bankruptcy, Ford is standing behind the company.

"Our priority is to ensure that Azure's Transit Connect Electric customers continue to have support throughout their ownership experience," said Wes Sherwood, Ford spokesman.

Azure definitely isn't the only EV battery company (or alternative energy company) to file for bankruptcy within the past year. In January, EV battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy after its subsidiary, EnerDel, received a $118 million Department of Energy grant in August 2009. Other EV battery issues that have occurred recently include General Motors' Chevrolet Volt, which experienced a series of battery fires last year, and problems with Fisker Automotive's Karma plug-in hybrid batteries, which will be replaced entirely by A123 Systems Inc. for $55 million.

Other failed alternative energy companies that have filed for bankruptcy include solar panel company Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the government despite warnings of Solyndra's viability, and Beacon Power, which received nearly $43 million from the government in August 2010 and filed for bankruptcy in November 2011.

Here's the total emissions by country in 2008, the latest I could find. China is number one at over 65 billion metric tons, USA number two at over 58 billion metric tons with Russia way behind at over 17 billion tons. It appears that you're trying to muddy the waters a bit by stating a per capita figure in countries that have widely disparate population figures. That's because in per capita CO2 production we here in the USA are still higher than almost every other country in the world besides Australia but their total impact is low because their population is also low.

The US have done a very good job over the past 10 years in reducing US emissions in total, per person and per GDP unit. The US is the leader in essentially every reduction category whether by absolute number or by percentage. Yes, the US emitted the most in 2000, but as a country the US has done the most these past 10 years...

Emissions per GDP unit is the most important number. That is what indicates progress. IE producing the -same- welfare with less emissions, not less welfare and less emissions.

That's one way to spin it but the real bottom line is how much CO2 the nations of the world are actually putting into the atmosphere not how much they are incrementally improving. Your spin is like an alcoholic proclaiming he's doing really well because he's cut down to drinking a gallon of whiskey a day from his former habit of two gallons. You imply that because we're improving we should ignore how bad we still are in total CO2 production. The USA is is having far more impact than is necessary and a most of that is caused by burning far more than is necessary in motor fuel. This situation also seriously degrades national security and trade balance because much of our oil supply has to be imported from other countries.

The flip side of that is that there's far more future economic growth in those "commie green" ideas than in the "free market" corporations paying off politicians to allow them to string along the internal combustion engine for another 100 years. China's government is spending far more than the USA gvmt. is to support future energy technologies and China also now has the world's largest producing oil company based there (Petrochina). Whining about a pittance spent in support of electric vehicles under those conditions is somewhat absurd.

quote: Your spin is like an alcoholic proclaiming he's doing really well because he's cut down to drinking a gallon of whiskey a day from his former habit of two gallons.

Ummm... no offense, but if I had an alcholic friend who halved his drinking, I would congradulate him for some good first steps.

quote: The USA is is having far more impact than is necessary and a most of that is caused by burning far more than is necessary in motor fuel.

So are Canada and Australia. Two countries that "believe" in AGW. Furthermore, Transportation accounts for less than 30% of C02 emissions in the US. Personal transportation for less than 25%. C02 itself only accounts for ~80% of the GHG emissions. The #1 factor is power plants, which are quickly moving from Coal to NG, reducing C02 per kWh significantly. Power Plants account for ~25% of the total GHG and all transportation for less than 20%.

quote: This situation also seriously degrades national security and trade balance because much of our oil supply has to be imported from other countries.

Your pretty ignorant. Coal is a bigger problem than Oil, and its sourced domestically almost 100%. This is also a secondary arguement. C02 emissions are not even close to the same thing as oil importation. There are many many ways we could address the importation of oil. Many of these would lead to increased C02 emissions.

quote: The flip side of that is that there's far more future economic growth in those "commie green" ideas than in the "free market" corporations paying off politicians to allow them to string along the internal combustion engine for another 100 years.

HAHAHA. You keep focusing on ICE engines, which are a relatively small part of the problem of C02 emissions! Even if we mandated no more ICE, it would take 20 years to reduce this factor of C02 emissions... and it would only be the amount we reduced it in the past 20 years -without- such drastic steps.

quote: China's government is spending far more than the USA gvmt. is to support future energy technologies and China also now has the world's largest producing oil company based there (Petrochina).

What does this sentence even mean? That the US should domenstically drill for more oil? That you want to live in China?

You realize that the majority of this "future" technology spending is earmarked for Nuclear Power right?

quote: Whining about a pittance spent in support of electric vehicles under those conditions is somewhat absurd.

Where did I do that?

------------------------

All in all you post is pretty misguided and ignorant. Full of complete non-sequitors.

The fundamental points I am making is that over the last 10 year (2000-2010) according to European Sources, the United States is the country that has made the most progress in reducing thier usage of C02 emitting technologies.

If this is the case, why be so critical of the meaningless words then? The US -is- making similiar if not better progress than many of the countries that endlessly spout thier concerns. Words are Wind...

In fact, comparing US to EU27 over 2000-2010, the US reduced the ton C02 per GDP unit by ~20%. The US now emits less C02 per GDP unit than Canada, Russia, and Australia. The EU27 as a group only reduced C02 emissions per GDP unit ~7% from 2000-2010. If current trends continue, the US will pass the EU27 in ~2040 for GHG emissions per unit of GDP.

Wow, that was a lot of typing to completely evade the point. That point is that in the total CO2 emissions by country World Championships, China is the largest emitter and the USA is number two with Russia way behind in third place.

It's great to improve and should be encouraged and good intentions to improve further are nice and all but not at the cost of self delusion. The USA is still the second largest CO2 emitter per capita and is also the second largest emitter by nation in total CO2 emissions.